I received a seriously tempting offer this weekend, and I could do with some feedback from you Canon folks. I have been using Leicas for the last couple of years, and last week I bought a Canon XSi for my wife. Having tried it out, I must say that I kind of miss the nice autofocus that you get with these cameras.

Currently I own a Leica M8 and the 35mm and 50mm Summilux ASPH, a very good setup for daily shooting. The offer i mentioned was someone willing to give me $8500 for the set, not a bad price at all.

Looking at what I could get, if I put those money towards a Canon setup:
- Canon 5D mkII - $2700
- Canon 35mm f/1.4 L - $1180
- Canon 50mm f/1.4 L - $325
- Canon 85mm f/1.2 II L - $1870
- Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - $1450
- Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS L - $1100

All in all: $8625, less if I can find any of this used. *Very* tempting, since I long for a full frame sensor.

I know you can not help me make the decision to "drop" Leica, but I find that the one thing I love about Leica is the performance wide open (f/1.4 on the Summilux'). Stopping down is pretty much needed only for increased depth of field. My biggest problem is handling the DOF at f/1.4 without autofocus: I don't get a lot of keepers, but the ones I get are stellar.
Also, the concept of "long" lenses on a Leica M is pretty much lost on me, I have tried diopters of every kind out there, but 90mm is a no-go zone for me.

So, for those of you owning the Canon lenses above, how would you say the wide open performance is? I'm mostly concerned with the 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 - are they close to their optimum at those speeds? Or do they "require" stopping down?

Depends who you ask. There is so much gear loyalty here that you will rarely find anyone who has shelled out so much money for a specialist lens say anything other than how great it is, especially when it comes to the sainted 85mm 1.2L.

What you will notice, as I'm sure you know is just how much bigger and bulkier your kit will be, I assume you don't mind this.

Full frame is great, I much prefer it but there's no question a 450D and a lens like the 17-55IS will provide at least as good quality as your Leica if not better at a much smaller size and weight than say a 5DII and a medium L zoom like the 24-70L

David

The only one from that list that I actually own is the 70-200 f4 which is a super lens.
Really good wide open and very sharp. Great on film, 1.6, 1.3 and FF digital.
You will be surprised at the reach it gives compared to the shorter lens on the M8
John

I think you will quickly miss the tiny size of the m8 plus the lenses. That is partly the reason I started using small manual lenses on my 5D like the OM Zuikos.
With an SLR it is still easier to manual focus than with a rangerfinder, so in a way it is the best of both worlds.
Those Ls you are talking about are of course fantastic lenses. I have them all, but never use them.

The 50mm 1.4 is not an L lens.

dhphoto wrote:
There is so much gear loyalty here that you will rarely find anyone who has shelled out so much money for a specialist lens say anything other than how great it is



Truer words never spoken.

Having used a M4-P / Hexar RF and a canon 5D here is my take. The Canon setup is going to be physically big and HEAVY relative to your current gear. The 5D AF at using the 50mm F1.4 is suspect in available light, the F1.2 has other focus issues so this is an issue for me, what's funny is the 17-40F4 doesn't have these issues under the same lighting conditions. This probably can be fixed with a STE-2 flash controlling thingy.

On the wide end I have the 17-40F4 which is really sharp, good color etc, no clue about canon's primes, I would look for an adapter for either a Leica R or ZM or Nikon lens if you need speed.

On the long end the 70-200F4 (I have the non IS) it is a bargain, sharp, light, easy to use.

One last thing, the L lenses are white and attracts lots of unwanted attention. The other issue you will have is the camera is acoustically louder than any M out there.

If you have any other questions you can PM me.

Gerry

patashnik wrote: For those of you owning the Canon lenses above, how would you say the wide open performance is? I'm mostly concerned with the 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 - are they close to their optimum at those speeds? Or do they "require" stopping down?


I don't know of any 1.0, 1.2, or 1.4 retrofocus (i.e., non-rangefinder) lenses that are super-close to their optimum when wide open in the sense that a photographer would choose to shoot (for example) a building facade with them wide open.

But the 35L and 85L do perform very well wide open, especially when the focus plane is isolated from the foreground and background.

That's why these "How sharp is x lens when wide-open?" threads always elicit a bunch of impressive photos of arm's-length subjects with a smooth, out-of-focus background and not, say, a photo of a building facade across the street: the more out of focus a large portion of the picture is, the sharper the in-focus portion will look.

That's fine with me, as I don't buy fast primes to shoot architecture wide-open at infinity. I use them to shoot subjects maybe 1-4 metres away.

I've never seen performance curves for Leica's best lenses; I shoot an M3 with a 50 'cron and while it's great wide-open, I know I'll maximize performance if I stop down 1-3 stops. So too it is with the 35L, the 85L, and just about every other lens (the 200/2 is probably the best performer wide open, but it's not small or cheap and it's not suitable for a lot of around-the-house shooting situations).

Castleman's charts pretty much reflect my experience: the 35L and 85L start out very good - one would never call the wide-open results "unuseable" - and improve measurably (if not earth-shatteringly) when stopped down 1 and preferably 2 stops:

For the 35mm:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

and for the 85mm:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

(Note in the latter that the lp/mm chart starts at 60 and goes up to 90, so the 2.0 and 2.8 improvements are exaggerated. If it was a 0-90 chart, the performance curve would look much flatter.)

Bottom line: I don't know if Canon's best can match Leica's best when both are shot wide-open. But the versatility of range, precise framing, and autofocus capabilities of the SLR lenses have to be taken into consideration in addition to pure wide-open performance.

P.S. You can use the charts at the-digital-picture to compare a lens' performance wide-open against itself stopped down (and of course you can compare it to other lenses). This chart shows the 35L wide open and, by mousing over, the same lens at 2.8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

You can change apertures and lenses as desired using the top menus on the linked page.

You can also, with both the 35L and the 85L, put one setting on "2.8" and the other on 5.6 or 8.0 and see how close to optimum the lens already is by 2.8. Both lenses hit their stride at a pretty large aperture.

Thank you! That link was really helpful. I know that "bulk" and "weight" are huge factors in this trade, but at the moment, I find that the M8 really isn't a very good camera for me - and that whatever I dump it for is bound to weigh more.

As a long time user of the Leica M cameras includeing ownng 3 M8's I can tell you one thing. You won't look back. M cameras are great and Leica glass is awesome. But guess what, some of the Canon and Zeiss glass comes pretty darn close. Plus you get full frame and 21 MP. If you shoot Leica, shoot film. I believe they are ages behind on the digital side. Yes I know, you see some great pictures with the M8 but the DSLR will blow it away in ALL aspects! I got rid of all my M8's and have never looked back. Don't miss them at all. In all honesty, I have said I wish I had switched sooner.

One can't deny the image quality and convenience of the new crop of DSLRs, full frame or not. I personally hate the size though. I can get pictures with my M + 1 lens that I'd never get with a (D)SLR because I'm simply willing to carry it all day. Keep that in mind. You have a great selection of lenses picked out. Can you imagine carrying all of them?

When it comes down to it for me, I'm most productive with one camera, one lens. Sure, sometimes I'll pack more, but switching lenses is a hassle, switching cameras is a hassle. I should probably just get a zoom. I could never imagine carrying 5 canon lenses at the same time. So for me, I'd carry maybe two. Now your probably talking a zoom (I'd go for the 16-35 or the 24-70 because I like wide to normal) and maybe the 70-200 or a tele prime like the 135. That gets you most of what you need and cuts down your lens selection a lot. Though for a day strolling around the city where photography *isn't* the primary focus, a 5D and one or two big lenses makes for a big bag and a sore shoulder. An M6 + 50 cron and 3 rolls of film is barely noticeable. For me at least.

If you have to get a third, get a fast prime (which you have selected) for those low light moments. The 50 is ok - it gets the job done but isn't amazing. But its cheap. You'll probably be disappointed with it after the 50 ASPH. The 35 from all accounts is great, but the 35 ASPH is as good if not better. I've heard the 85 focusses slow. I could be wrong about that. Also note that autofocus is not perfect, there is a range of error, and that becomes more of a problem at large apertures.

But then again, I went from DSLR -> film SLR -> film M, so what do I know.

kidtexas wrote:
One can't deny the image quality and convenience of the new crop of DSLRs, full frame or not. I personally hate the size though. I can get pictures with my M + 1 lens that I'd never get with a (D)SLR because I'm simply willing to carry it all day. Keep that in mind. You have a great selection of lenses picked out. Can you imagine carrying all of them?

When it comes down to it for me, I'm most productive with one camera, one lens. Sure, sometimes I'll pack more, but switching lenses is a hassle, switching cameras is a hassle. I should probably just get a zoom. I could never imagine carrying 5 canon lenses at the same time. So for me, I'd carry maybe two. Now your probably talking a zoom (I'd go for the 16-35 or the 24-70 because I like wide to normal) and maybe the 70-200 or a tele prime like the 135. That gets you most of what you need and cuts down your lens selection a lot. Though for a day strolling around the city where photography *isn't* the primary focus, a 5D and one or two big lenses makes for a big bag and a sore shoulder. An M6 + 50 cron and 3 rolls of film is barely noticeable. For me at least.

If you have to get a third, get a fast prime (which you have selected) for those low light moments. The 50 is ok - it gets the job done but isn't amazing. But its cheap. You'll probably be disappointed with it after the 50 ASPH. The 35 from all accounts is great, but the 35 ASPH is as good if not better. I've heard the 85 focusses slow. I could be wrong about that. Also note that autofocus is not perfect, there is a range of error, and that becomes more of a problem at large apertures.

But then again, I went from DSLR -> film SLR -> film M, so what do I know.

I'd bet the combined weight of a 450D and a Tamron 17-50 is the same or even less than an M8 and one of it's lenses, let alone the lenses you would need to take to cover the 17-50 range. And I'd also bet you wouldn't tell the difference in IQ.

David

I use the 35L, 85L II and 70-200 f/4 IS on my 1Ds3. Wide open performance is excellent. In case of the 35L and 85L II some micro adjustment was needed in order to get there... I used these two lenses also on my 5D's and wide open performance was so-so.

dhphoto wrote:
I'd bet the combined weight of a 450D and a Tamron 17-50 is the same or even less than an M8 and one of it's lenses, let alone the lenses you would need to take to cover the 17-50 range. And I'd also bet you wouldn't tell the difference in IQ.


I never said that image quality would be worse with a DSLR. Though there are some reasons I like film still, I will say for 99% of people out there, a modern DSLR is way better than film, and certainly better than the M8 - its hard to argue 21 mp versus the 10 of the M8. This is not a quality argument. Though I did remark on the quality of the leica lenses, that was because the original poster asked. The 50 and 35 ASPH are some amazing lenses and compare very well to other lenses. The M8 sensor doesn't necessarily extract the full potential out of those lenses - I'm sure the 5D or 5DII performs much better - or even the 450D, but that wasn't the question.

To be honest though, I'm happy with 8x10 prints. And half the time I shoot wide open at 1/15s so I'm not kidding myself about quality...

Bulk is an issue too. Its not just weight. I have a 300D. I have a 1V. And I have an M6. I have some of the smaller lenses for Canon. On paper it doesn't seem like much. But I'd love to see you fit a 450D and that zoom in my camera bag. I carried my 300D + lens around NYC for many days. On days that I didn't shoot much, I always regretted the decision. I've never done that with my M6 + lens.

And I would certainly be more compact in covering 15mm-50mm (on full frame). For me that means a CV 15mm (the size of a roll of film approximately) and a 35 mm lens (still the size of a roll of film, but bigger than the 15). I can make up the distance to 50mm with my feet

I know its not important to everyone, but I find the incremental size increase from an M and a lens to an DSLR and a lens to be enough to prevent ME from carrying my camera around. The weight comment was more directed at the difference between and M+2 lenses and a 5D+5 lenses.

Some people don't mind. Some people love a big 70-200 2.8 zoom on top of a big honking DSLR with grip. I don't.

Jorge Torralba wrote:
As a long time user of the Leica M cameras includeing ownng 3 M8's I can tell you one thing. You won't look back. M cameras are great and Leica glass is awesome. But guess what, some of the Canon and Zeiss glass comes pretty darn close. Plus you get full frame and 21 MP. If you shoot Leica, shoot film. I believe they are ages behind on the digital side. Yes I know, you see some great pictures with the M8 but the DSLR will blow it away in ALL aspects! I got rid of all my M8's and have never looked back. Don't miss them at all. In all honesty, I have said I wish I had switched sooner.

Jorge, coming from you, this is an opinion I value a lot. Thanks.

the lenses all work ok wide. The only two lenses that are in the range you mentioned that work well wide open are: 85 1.2 and 135 2. These two lenses are incredible wide open. the 50 needs a stop almost always for any subject, and the 35 is good but not excellent. the 70 200 of any aperture in the current range are very very good wide open.

You're probably not going to be happy with the 50 1.4 unless you really like the soft dreamy look of this lens (it can be just right sometimes.) If it were me I'd drop the 50 1.4 and the two zooms and go with the 50 1.2L and the 200 2.8L. Another option worth considering is getting the 24 1.4LII vice the 35 1.4L.

sorry, you listed the 1.4 which I love but wouldn't recommend from a leica mover, as I was when I first bought this lens. The L, as you list in "half" the name, as there is no 1.4 L, is a 1.2 and much more enjoyable handling, more durable, and much better 1.4 lens.

Don't forget that the 5D Mk II will have a 2 stop hi ISO advantage over your M8 so that you can shoot at F2.8 instead of F1.4 with identical noise and more DOF, etc.

Realize too that your M8 is a 1.3x crop so that FF is wider for a given lens. So a 50 mm on the M8 is closer to the 85mm on FF. The 85mm F1.2 is renown for wide open IQ as is the 35L. I don't recommend the 50 F1.4 because is has low contrast at F1.4. The 50mm f1.2 L however is a hero if you need F1.2-f2.0.

i use the 85/1.2 and 35/1.4 a LOT. i can honestly say that the 85 is stunning wide open. the 35 is very good, but i realize not everyone gets a copy that's as sharp as mine. i don't think you'll regret either of those lenses.

Keep the Leica M8 and buy additionally step-by-step yourself into Canon gear. For example first start purchasing the 5D MkII with max. 1-3 lenses only. Get used to this gear first, then decide what you really mostly need.
From your list I own the 50 f1.4 and the 70-200 f4 IS. Both I can highly recommend. Obviously you mostly prefer fast lenses - but also consider the 17-40 f4 L lens and the 85 f1.8. You need to decide if several $$$ are really worth the difference between f1.2 and f1.8. It never was for me at least, but you might decide differently.

you can also adapt Leica-R on a 5D...

Coming from an Asph 50 Lux, the Canon 50/1.4 will be disappointing. I suggest the Sigma 50mm/1.4 if you want autofocus and wide-open sharpness.

I say go for it, you only live once!

All of your choices sound good, unfortunately, the EF 50mm f/1.4 is not at its best wide open, although some folks reported decent results with them wide open.
Similarly, the 50mm f/1.2L has a few aficionados out there while many have observed a backocus anomaly with it.
However, I'd rather have the f/1.2 such as it is than f/1.4 any day.